Sunday, January 26, 2014

How do peaceful societies come about?

Although this blog is still taking a long holiday, I want to
write about this issue now because I have been turning it over in the back of
my mind for a few months.

A good place to start might be to think of a poor country,
or even a developing country, with a law and order problem. In this country,
the people who can afford to do so live behind high fences and they are
protected by security guards. The rest of the population are highly vulnerable
to criminal activity of many kinds. Crime has a dampening effect on all forms
of commercial activity that cannot be adequately protected by high fences and
security guards. For example, any economic activity involving road transport to
and from the rural areas, where most people live, is constrained by the high risk
of banditry by people living near the roads.

So, what should be done about this? The main options that
seem to come up in public discussion are:

Deter crime by ensuring that criminals are more
frequently caught and punished.

Make a life of crime a less attractive option to
potential criminals by promoting more widespread economic opportunity.

I don’t hold much hope for the first option. Church attendance
is at record levels in the particular country that I am thinking of. My reading of history also suggests to me
that religion is not enough to promote peacefulness.

“Adherents of the major world religions all subscribe to a
vision of ethical behaviour corresponding to the golden rule of treating others
as one would like to be treated. It would seem reasonable to expect that
followers of those religions would always have obtained satisfaction from
acting in accordance with this ideal. Yet, this was not sufficient to bring
about an outbreak of peacefulness outside of religious orders.

Why not? We would need a model of moral progress to answer
that question. Such a model would specify that the way people behave and how
they perceive themselves depends on the incentives in the environment in which
they live. If they believe that people outside their family group or tribe are
not to be trusted, they will not risk attempting to engage with them in
cooperative ventures or mutually beneficial exchange. If they believe that the
incentives in their environment favour predatory behaviour, they will tend to
adopt a sense of personal identity that enables them to feel comfortable with such
behaviour despite paying lip service to higher ideals.

A model of moral progress would recognise that the emergence
of governments that showed greater respect for the rights of citizens
ameliorated a major threat to life and property. It would recognise the
importance of the emergence of mechanisms for contract enforcement in both
promoting trustworthy behaviour and encouraging greater trust of strangers.
This, in turn, enabled mutually beneficial exchange involving larger groups of
people.”

That way of thinking emphasizes that the peacefulness of
societies depends to a large extent on the attitudes of individuals and groups.
Perceptions of incentives are important not just in affecting the expected
rewards from crime relative to alternative pursuits, but also in influencing
the perceptions that individuals have of themselves.

So, we should be thinking about the impact that
interventions might have on attitudes rather than just about altering incentives.
Devoting more resources to fighting crime will not necessarily have much impact
if perpetrators perceive themselves to be justified in their actions and are
supported by their relatives and the community groups to which they belong. A post I wrote last year about crime in Tipperary, Ireland, at the beginning of
the 19th Century illustrates the problem.

However, that doesn’t answer the question of what can
actually be done to help induce a transition from a situation in which
incentives tend to favour predatory attitudes and behaviour to one in which
incentives favour productive activity and market exchange. Some would argue
that more government spending to expand the police force is the only practical
option. After all, the societies that have made the transition to peacefulness in
the past have achieved the desired outcome by investing vast amounts of public
money in protecting property and deterring crime, haven’t they?

Actually, when we
look at the history of Britain, peacefulness didn’t happen quite like that. In
his book, The Enlightened Economy, Joel
Mokyr points out that the Hobbesian view that order can only be achieved
through firm third-party (i.e. government) enforcement was not true of Britain
in the 18th Century. Large parts of Britain were virtual “lawless
zones” and in others, legal practice often deviated considerably from the
letter of the law. Enforcement was largely a private enterprise with the courts
at best serving as an enforcer of last resort. There was no professional police
force. Daily law enforcement was in the hands of amateurs and part-time parish
constables. Justice had to rely to a large extent on volunteers, local
informers, vigilante groups and private associations specializing in
prosecution of felons. Private law enforcement remained of substantial
importance until well into the 19th Century (pages 376-379).

Mokyr argues that the economic system functioned because the
crucial economic actors – merchants, craftsmen, bankers, farmers etc. – were
bound by moral codes of concern about their reputations. (I wrote more about
that here, as well as in Free to Flourish.)
There were credible signals that property rights would be protected, even
though such signals were, for the most part, not sent via government law
enforcement agencies.

So, what does all that mean for promoting law and order in
poor countries in which economic development is being held back by criminal
activities? The only insight I have to offer is that history seems to support
the view that economic opportunity holds the key to peacefulness.

If you want
to start a virtuous cycle where peacefulness supports the growth of economic
opportunity, you first need to have sufficient numbers of people who are able
to perceive of opportunities to engage productively in mutually beneficial activities,
and hence, to want to live in peace. If politicians want to help (a big ‘if’
I know) they should be thinking about what they can do to encourage the
relatives of people with predatory tendencies to engage productively in
mutually beneficial activities. For example, if the risk of banditry is making
it too costly for farmers to send their produce to market then, perhaps, there
might be some way to get the some of the relatives of the bandits productively
engaged in the transport of goods, perhaps even as security guards. Anyhow, that might be an option worth thinking
about as an alternative to expanding police numbers.

No comments:

Emancipation

Welcome!

Welcome to Freedom and Flourishing. While you are here, why not take a look around and leave some comments.

There is a list of my most popular posts below. I am pleased that a post about characteristics of a good society, that I wrote in 2009, is still one of the most popular. That post captures some of the ideas about freedom and individual human flourishing that I think are most important.